|
FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already. Thanks! (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
There is a subjective dimension to morality, but you can't infer from that that there are no moral standards. Just because you don't think killing babies isn't immoral, that doesn't mean killing babies is moral and you can get away with it (morally speaking). Moral psychology has become an interesting and developing field in the last couple of decades, and moral nihilism (which is what you seem to be getting at here) is just a logical possibility, but unless your name is Arbiter, it isn't an actual possibility :p |
My senior thesis from college was on Moral Relativism. I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as morality, just that it's completely subjective to whom you ask. Yes, certain views of morality are overwhelmingly more accepted than others, but that doesn't in itself make them "right" or "good." That's why it's impossible to create an objective system of morality because humans are built to have their own opinions.
I found that the people that tend to hold the (and I'm only using this phrase for effect) "religious morality" (i.e. Don't kill, don't steal, etc.) tend to be more of followers than people who actually think for themselves.
I'm not arguing for any system of morality here, so I don't want to get into that, I'm just saying that it's just an unavoidable fact that you cannot present me with an objective system of morality that I will agree with. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
There is a subjective dimension to morality, but you can't infer from that that there are no moral standards. Just because you don't think killing babies isn't immoral, that doesn't mean killing babies is moral and you can get away with it (morally speaking). |
That's also not morally speaking, it's legally speaking. Just ask China :stongue: Seriously though, people often confuse moral standards with legal standards. Killing someone isn't bad because it is objectively morally wrong, it's "bad" because laws dictate that it's bad (even though most people would agree that it is wrong to kill someone).
I tend to think that people tend to either accept a legal or religious representation of "morality" when this seems to me like little kids in Alabama thinking that monkeys are the devil and that the earth is 3,000 years old because their teachers told them so. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
However, the moment he says "it's near impossible to say anyone is doing anything morally wrong" then we're getting very close to a sort of nihilism as the impossibility of any morality. |
What I meant here is that it is near impossible to say someone is doing something morally wrong, because in order to do so, you have to determine that A) They follow your exact moral standards, B) They have any moral standards at all, and the list goes on and on. Telling something "What you're doing is morally wrong" is like telling someone "I don't like what you're doing, so I'm going to say it's immoral."
I think if you take the legal aspect out of it, and deny the possibility that what you do in life has any effect on what happens when you die, then morality goes down the tube.
Edit: This thread is so immoral, man. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
My senior thesis from college was on Moral Relativism. I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as morality, just that it's completely subjective to whom you ask. Yes, certain views of morality are overwhelmingly more accepted than others, but that doesn't in itself make them "right" or "good." That's why it's impossible to create an objective system of morality because humans are built to have their own opinions. |
Fair enough, what makes a thing right then, in your opinion?
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I found that the people that tend to hold the (and I'm only using this phrase for effect) "religious morality" (i.e. Don't kill, don't steal, etc.) tend to be more of followers than people who actually think for themselves. |
What if people analyse the so-called religious morality and find no reason not to follow it?
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I'm not arguing for any system of morality here, so I don't want to get into that, I'm just saying that it's just an unavoidable fact that you cannot present me with an objective system of morality that I will agree with. |
So you're arguing against any system of morality and leaving us without one?
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
That's also not morally speaking, it's legally speaking. Just ask China :stongue: Seriously though, people often confuse moral standards with legal standards. Killing someone isn't bad because it is objectively morally wrong, it's "bad" because laws dictate that it's bad (even though most people would agree that it is wrong to kill someone). |
Consuming drugs may well be morally okay but legally problematic. Likewise, killing babies may be legally right - as in China - but morally wrong.
I wouldn't be so naive as to confuse the two.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I tend to think that people tend to either accept a legal or religious representation of "morality" when this seems to me like little kids in Alabama thinking that monkeys are the devil and that the earth is 3,000 years old because their teachers told them so. |
They reckon the Earth is six years old mate :D
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
What I meant here is that it is near impossible to say someone is doing something morally wrong, because in order to do so, you have to determine that A) They follow your exact moral standards, B) They have any moral standards at all, and the list goes on and on. Telling something "What you're doing is morally wrong" is like telling someone "I don't like what you're doing, so I'm going to say it's immoral." |
Actually, I'd have to go against "A". Maybe there isn't one right absolute system of morality. An Utilitarian sees right and wrong in a way that a deontologist doesn't, and vice-versa, and whatever was considered moral in the past (such as slavery) needn't be so in contemporary life. However, if there was no way to tell what is(n't) wrong under any standard, we're on our way to moral nihilism.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I think if you take the legal aspect out of it, and deny the possibility that what you do in life has any effect on what happens when you die, then morality goes down the tube. |
I disagree. I don't do things because of what the law says, and might refrain from doing insofar as it may get me into trouble. For example, I'd say going postal and opening fire at a crowd shooting bystanders point blank is as immoral as you get. Do I believe in an after life? No, not at all. The reason why I reckon it's immoral to pull a Columbine is not because someone/something is going to punish me in this life or in an afterlife. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Fair enough, what makes a thing right then, in your opinion? |
My opinion is irrelevant. Since morality is subjective, I think that what makes a thing right is whatever a person deems right. Getting into words like "right" and "wrong" I think necessitates a subjective answer when talking about morals.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
What if people analyse the so-called religious morality and find no reason not to follow it? |
That seems impossible to get any tangible results, or even have a method of studying, so I won't get into that right now :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
So you're arguing against any system of morality and leaving us without one? |
Not necessarily. I'm saying your system of morality is just that, yours. I'm saying there is no system of morality for "us."
| quote: | | Originally posted by Lira Actually, I'd have to go against "A". Maybe there isn't one right absolute system of morality. An Utilitarian sees right and wrong in a way that a deontologist doesn't, and vice-versa, and whatever was considered moral in the past (such as slavery) needn't be so in contemporary life. However, if there was no way to tell what is(n't) wrong under any standard, we're on our way to moral nihilism. |
I don't think so. Just because there's no universal standard for morality, doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Lira I disagree. I don't do things because of what the law says, and might refrain from doing insofar as it may get me into trouble. For example, I'd say going postal and opening fire at a crowd shooting bystanders point blank is as immoral as you get. Do I believe in an after life? No, not at all. The reason why I reckon it's immoral to pull a Columbine is not because someone/something is going to punish me in this life or in an afterlife. |
Why do you reckon it's immoral then? Psychopathy kind of affects your examples in this case, so I'd have to say it's a possibility that the Columbine shooters either A) had no morality or B) weren't capable of grasping it at the time.
I guess in my opinion, and in using your example; for myself, no, I wouldn't go on a killing spree like that myself, but if someone were to ask me if it was objectively morally wrong to do so, my answer would be "no." However misguided the reasoning is for doing whatever "wrong" act, there is a possibility that to that individual, the act they're performing is wholly "right." |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
|
Government can't stifle a market this huge and doing so would be the reason why there is so much violence. Don't blame the market itself. Cigarette and alcohol companies aren't knocking each other off because one of their sales associates treaded on the other's territory. Prohibition is the obvious problem, not the fact that people want to smoke weed. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
That's also not morally speaking, it's legally speaking. Just ask China :stongue: Seriously though, people often confuse moral standards with legal standards. Killing someone isn't bad because it is objectively morally wrong, it's "bad" because laws dictate that it's bad (even though most people would agree that it is wrong to kill someone).
|
Killing someone is wrong because it harms the group. In times past it would’ve harmed the chances of group survival. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Why do you reckon it's immoral then? Psychopathy kind of affects your examples in this case, so I'd have to say it's a possibility that the Columbine shooters either A) had no morality or B) weren't capable of grasping it at the time.
I guess in my opinion, and in using your example; for myself, no, I wouldn't go on a killing spree like that myself, but if someone were to ask me if it was objectively morally wrong to do so, my answer would be "no." However misguided the reasoning is for doing whatever "wrong" act, there is a possibility that to that individual, the act they're performing is wholly "right." |
1. Your arguments are contradictory. You're actually submitting that there is no such thing as morality. The salient nature of this is tortured however with the suggestion that those who commit mass murder might believe themselves morally correct in what they do, which therefor proposes a contradiction.
2. Forensic behavioral scientists/psychologists term them as Pseudo-Commando Mass Murderers. They obviously have beliefs which include moral distinctions being made which, in turn, justify their actions. It is only through a suspension of any plausible reason that the tortured system of beliefs held by these people resembles anything that is ethically redeemable. Most of them enter the breach assuming that they are going to die and those who have been captured, before being able to commit suicide, admitted that they were so shocked by their own depravity that guilt and remorse played more of a role in the suicidal ideation than thoughts of whatever might happen to them, as a result of being captured. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Killing someone is wrong because it harms the group. In times past it would’ve harmed the chances of group survival. |
"In times past" isn't a great system to base a system of morality on. Regardless, my point is that to say "Killing someone is wrong" you would need to have an objective system of morality, which doesn't exist.
Your sentence "Killing someone is wrong because it harms the group" is also troubling since there's countless situations where killing someone would benefit a group.
That also brings up the point that a group mentality, such as you've mentioned, is not always beneficial itself. Hitler's propaganda convinced hundreds of thousands if not millions that Jews were a sub-human race and their extermination benefited the group. That notion was morally "right" under that regime.
It's all relative. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
1. Your arguments are contradictory. You're actually submitting that there is no such thing as morality. The salient nature of this is tortured however with the suggestion that those who commit mass murder might believe themselves morally correct in what they do, which therefor proposes a contradiction.
2. Forensic behavioral scientists/psychologists term them as Pseudo-Commando Mass Murderers. They obviously have beliefs which include moral distinctions being made which, in turn, justify their actions. It is only through a suspension of any plausible reason that the tortured system of beliefs held by these people resembles anything that is ethically redeemable. Most of them enter the breach assuming that they are going to die and those who have been captured, before being able to commit suicide, admitted that they were so shocked by their own depravity that guilt and remorse played more of a role in the suicidal ideation than thoughts of whatever might happen to them, as a result of being captured. |
I'm pretty sure I never argued that there was no such thing as morality. If I did, what I meant was that there was no such thing as an objective system of morality.
I wasn't really trying to comment on why mass-murderers commit their crimes, just using it as an example of how if they didn't think that what they were doing was morally reprehensible, they obviously have a different set of morals than you or I.
Also, when something is as pre-meditated as the Columbine shootings, I really doubt that the reason that they turned their guns on themselves was that they were so shocked by remorse. When you put someone on their knees and execute them, it's really hard for me to believe that you're going to feel bad for doing it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
"In times past" isn't a great system to base a system of morality on. Regardless, my point is that to say "Killing someone is wrong" you would need to have an objective system of morality, which doesn't exist. |
I agree, objective morality doesn’t exist (well, unless god exists AND he has a moral code). But morality based on the harm caused to the rest of us is more than sufficient. “in times past” was a reference to the fact that human beings no longer have to struggle to survive, hence killing a member of the group now has little, if any, effect on the ability for the herd to continue.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Your sentence "Killing someone is wrong because it harms the group" is also troubling since there's countless situations where killing someone would benefit a group. |
Well sure, killing people who are harming the survival of the group would indeed benefit the group. But I didn’t realise we were talking in specifics, as opposed to your average homicide and why such actions are wrong due to the harm it causes third parties.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
That also brings up the point that a group mentality, such as you've mentioned, is not always beneficial itself. Hitler's propaganda convinced hundreds of thousands if not millions that Jews were a sub-human race and their extermination benefited the group. That notion was morally "right" under that regime. |
I’m not sure how this is relevant, since hitler was quite obviously wrong, and by wrong I mean incorrect. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I’m not sure how this is relevant, since hitler was quite obviously wrong, and by wrong I mean incorrect. |
It's relevant because it shows that "morality" is a completely subjective idea. In Nazi Germany, many believed that the extermination of Jews was morally okay. Regardless of what you or I think about it, if someone else has a different set of morals, then objective morality can't be proven. It's not really much different than people's tastes in food or music. I think one thing is morally wrong, and you don't. That doesn't necessitate that either one of us be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
